Do stiffer frames encourage a higher cadence?

neeb

It's really noticeable that both pro and amateur riders these days tend to use lower gears and higher cadences than, say, 25 years ago. I have this idea that this might be something to do with frames being stiffer. It seems to me that the slight "give" in an old-fashioned flexy steel frame makes it easier to push a higher gear, while a stiff frame tends to encourage spinning more. On the other hand, with my current frame, which is pretty stiff, I have sometimes found myself selecting a higher gear when climbing out of the saddle just to be able to feel a little bit of give in the frame, which sort of argues the opposite for some situations.

I think stiffer frames are more efficient over all, but they certainly feel different and seem to me to encourage a different riding style.

cyco2

Interesting concept that.

oldwelshman

neeb wrote:

It's really noticeable that both pro and amateur riders these days tend to use lower gears and higher cadences than, say, 25 years ago. I have this idea that this might be something to do with frames being stiffer. It seems to me that the slight "give" in an old-fashioned flexy steel frame makes it easier to push a higher gear, while a stiff frame tends to encourage spinning more. On the other hand, with my current frame, which is pretty stiff, I have sometimes found myself selecting a higher gear when climbing out of the saddle just to be able to feel a little bit of give in the frame, which sort of argues the opposite for some situations.

I think stiffer frames are more efficient over all, but they certainly feel different and seem to me to encourage a different riding style.

Why would flex in a steel frame allow pushing higher gears? Not sure how you work this out or how the cadences are higher than years ago.
Cadance is like a natural frequency which each persoan eventually finds one for themselves and strangely for vast majority of racing cyclist ends up very close to each others cadance

neeb

oldwelshman wrote:

Why would flex in a steel frame allow pushing higher gears? Not sure how you work this out or how the cadences are higher than years ago.
Cadance is like a natural frequency which each persoan eventually finds one for themselves and strangely for vast majority of racing cyclist ends up very close to each others cadance

If you look at the gears people were using 20 or 30 years ago they were often a lot higher, and certainly when climbing the pros at least seemed to grind massive gears whereas now there is a greater tendency to maintain a higher cadence when climbing. Maybe on the flat there is not such a big difference.

I can't back this up with hard data but it seems to me that the slight flex in a steel frame somehow interacts with the pedalling action to make a higher gear feel more comfortable/natural/efficient. If you think about it, if the frame flexes more at one particular part of the pedal stroke it might be equivalent to having slightly ovalised chainrings in terms of how it interacts with the leg muscles, and depending on how exactly that happens it might feel more natural to use a higher gear. The frame would flex more when climbing, especially out of the saddle, so the effect might be more pronounced then. Or to think about it another way - maybe with a higher gear when climbing out of the saddle, you have enough force to push the frame as far as it will reasonably flex, i.e. to fully tension it, before you put your energy into the drive train. With a lower gear (more leg speed, less force) perhaps more of your energy is wasted in flexing the frame (because you are still flexing it to nearly its maximum extent so a smaller percentage of the total force you are putting in goes to the drive train).

Complete speculation of course, just trying to rationalise a subjective impression I have.

oldwelshman

I sort of understand where your coming from but dont reaaly think there is ant difference.
The reason we used to grin out on bigger egars years ago was the fact that the standard chainring was 52/42 and rear cassette of either 5 or 6 sprockets, most were 6 and went 13,14,15,16,17,19,21, thats what I used to use for races with hills and a 13 straight through for flat races and crits.
This is probably why you see no difference in cadance on the flat but do for climbing.
As for frame flex, the BB normally flexes most at the bottom of the pedal stroke when the bike is leaning most so not really the same effect as oval rings which act on mid pedal stroke. My steel frame flexes a couple of mm at most when climbing, I think a worse effect is flex in some rear wheels when climbing Interesting theories though, maybe we can start a research project

Pross

oldwelshman wrote:

I sort of understand where your coming from but dont reaaly think there is ant difference.
The reason we used to grin out on bigger egars years ago was the fact that the standard chainring was 52/42 and rear cassette of either 5 or 6 sprockets, most were 6 and went 13,14,15,16,17,19,21, thats what I used to use for races with hills and a 13 straight through for flat races and crits.
This is probably why you see no difference in cadance on the flat but do for climbing.
As for frame flex, the BB normally flexes most at the bottom of the pedal stroke when the bike is leaning most so not really the same effect as oval rings which act on mid pedal stroke. My steel frame flexes a couple of mm at most when climbing, I think a worse effect is flex in some rear wheels when climbing Interesting theories though, maybe we can start a research project

I think this is the likely answer. When struggling up hills on 39 x 25 now I wonder how I used to get away with 42 x 21! No 11 and very few 12 sprockets then as well yet there now seems to be a major problem with people 'spinning out' when using anything bigger than a 12.

shockedsoshocked

neeb wrote:

oldwelshman wrote:

Why would flex in a steel frame allow pushing higher gears? Not sure how you work this out or how the cadences are higher than years ago.
Cadance is like a natural frequency which each persoan eventually finds one for themselves and strangely for vast majority of racing cyclist ends up very close to each others cadance

If you look at the gears people were using 20 or 30 years ago they were often a lot higher, and certainly when climbing the pros at least seemed to grind massive gears whereas now there is a greater tendency to maintain a higher cadence when climbing. Maybe on the flat there is not such a big difference.

I think this is more down to the advancement in training/racing techniques and sports science, as well as changes in equipment (allowing for a greater range of gears).

thegibdog

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

I think this is more down to the advancement in training/racing techniques and sports science, as well as changes in equipment (allowing for a greater range of gears).

+1 Was just about to post that. I think people are more aware that grinding away in a big gear isn't that efficient and gearing has evolved to meet that.

slowsider

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

I think this is more down to the advancement in training/racing techniques and sports science, as well as changes in equipment (allowing for a greater range of gears).

Yeah that. ^^
and I thought it dated to Lemond's return from his hunting accident, when he didn't have the strength to push big gears, but achieved the same power pushing smaller ones faster. It's all to do with the physics of Work, iirc.

OfficerDigby

I've read heard threads/arguments that the lost 'flex-energy' comes back to you later in the pedal stroke.

I'm not sure if I accepted them however if real then you can kind-of sort-of see it!.

oldwelshman

thegibdog wrote:

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

I think this is more down to the advancement in training/racing techniques and sports science, as well as changes in equipment (allowing for a greater range of gears).

+1 Was just about to post that. I think people are more aware that grinding away in a big gear isn't that efficient and gearing has evolved to meet that.

I think we knew that years ago but had no choice lol I remember seeing many russian and Czek riders get off on the tumble and bwlch inmilk race as they had no gears left to go down to
Still see some riders geting off on some really bad climbs even with compacts, tripples and dinner plates on the back.I suppose if yourgrinding or spinning less than walking pace may as well get off and walk, just the embarassment